Jimmy Carter – who really should have stuck to building habitats for humanity – stuck his foot in the door recently, when he published the bizarrely titled, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” He claimed the book was intended to be deliberately provocative, in order to spur debate. Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz threw the door wide open to accept the challenge. Carter told him, “No thanks.”
Turns out he really only wanted to debate with people who agreed with him:
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he’s a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I’m talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”
Carter’s book has been condemned as “moronic” (Slate), “anti-historical” (The Washington Post), “laughable” (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by “representatives of Jewish organizations” as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel’s “persecution” of Palestinians was “[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda,” Carter answered, “Yes. I think — yes.”
When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn’t read the book and then blustered, “You know, I think it’s a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He’s so obviously biased, Larry, and it’s not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him.”
He’s right of course. Dershowitz is biased. We all are, you, me, Dershowitz. Jimmy Carter.
I’m biased into believing that internationally recognized democratic states ought to have the right to defend themselves from terror attacks. I’m biased into believing that if those states choose to enter into existential negotiations with their neighbors, they have the right to expect that those neighbors are negotiating in good faith. When a state agrees to negotiate the terms of its continued existence with those who have been hostile to that idea, they’ve got the right to ask for up front evidence of that good faith. That’s my bias.
Jimmy Carter’s bias is that he wants to believe he is important, that he’s a player, that he made a difference. The only signal achievement during his one-term presidency was the Camp David peace accords, resulting in the normalization of relations between Israel and Egypt. It was a significant achievement, and re-ordered middle eastern politics forever. It did not however, bring an end to all hostility in the region, as Syria, Iraq, Iran and elements within both the Saudi government and GCC states remained implacably hostile to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state.
The fact remains that the mullacracies, thugocracies and assorted tyrannies in the region are far too wedded to their judenhasse both instinctively and as a ready-made excuse for their own manifest deficiencies to change their public position: That Israel’s existence is illegitimate, and that if the Jews cannot be frightened into leaving by acts of random terror then they should be pushed into the sea. After that, well, we can open discussions on the status of al Andalus.
If the Arab states cannot be moved towards accomodation, then in Carter’s mind the only thing that will cement his peacemaking cred is that Israel seek an accomodation with the forces seeking its demographic destruction. How bitterly he must resent their reluctance to negotiate the terms of their own destruction. It’s his legacy at stake.
If it’s a debate he wants, Professor Dershowitz will give it to him:
When Jimmy Carter’s ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I’ll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there — ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.
Carter is right, of course, to leave the gauntlet on the ground. There’s no point in trying to defend the indefensible.
I’m am biased in believing that Mr. Carter paved the road to empower radical Islam by standing by for 444 days while 54 of our fellow Americans and their families were terrorized, beaten, and held captive…
Personally, I hate Mr. Carter. I won’t go into why, but my belief is that he is a truly evil man.
Regarding his post presidential life, my own take on it is that he realizes what an abject failure he was as a President, and even more so as a human being. His policies were proven wrong, and the voters rejected him as weak. In fact, the fruits of his mid-east policies and his weakness with Islamic fundamentalism are coming back to haunt him. Deep down, I think he understands this, and as he has gotten older he is letting the mask slip. This is his attempt at creating an alternative history for himself, and his true believers.
As the old saying goes, he will be consigned to the dustbin of history. And good riddance.
I was in Germany when the hostages were taken.
We went on alert for three days, locked and loaded ready to move out to go rescue our countrymen.
After that sorry episode, the moral among the troops was IMO at an all time low.
We couldn’t understand why we didn’t go down there in force and kick some Iranian butt.
The day that Reagan was inaugurated was a turning point in the history of the armed forces.
Suddenly, we had Pride and a new sense of Esprit de Corps, all things were possible.
I noticed a very similar result when WJC stepped down and our current President was inaugurated
His book is nothing but lies, distortions, and ommissions. It is indefensible. His Nobel Peace prize was a sham. Except for the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, his policies and continuing mouthpiecing have led to the road becoming a more dangerous place. As stated in pther comments, his weakness emboldened the Islamofacists.
I’m from Georgia, as was the male side of my family, since 1830-something. I don’t care for Jimmih, one least little bit. I would *love* to see him meet Mr. Dershowitz on the debate platform and get the smackdown he so thoroughly deserves. Oh, BTW, the Sweetie has a book published when Jimmih was first running for Prez which recounts his connections with the Rockefellers, CFR, and suchlike other Big Boys. Just thought I’d throw that in.
P.S. As a lapsed Methodist who sometimes attends Episcopal services, I’m suspicious of Baptists. They’ll excuse *anything* by quoting Scripture. The Rockefellers are Baptists. Damned YANKEE Baptists.
Until the USNA Alumni Association rescinds their award of “Distinguished Graduate” to this poor excuse for a human being, they will not get a single penny of my money. I never understood why they did it in the first place, since Jimmah didn’t even complete his service commitment, nor did he serve a single day on a nuclear sub underway.
Web Reconnaissance for 12/22/2006…
A short recon of what?
Web Reconnaissance for 12/22/2006…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….
unkawill — I’ll see your three days and raise you 8 months, the amount of time we (the IKE battle group) drilled holes off the coast of Iran waiting for the word to be given (sans liberty save 3 days in Singapore). It, of course, never was.
Justthisguy – careful about throwing stones, I’ve seen all stripes of denominations twist and contort Scripture to meet their purposes, not just Baptists.
- SJS
He left our people in Iran to rot – what more needs to be said. History should NOT treat this man kindly.
As one who spent the 4 years of this man’s administration on active duty and eligible for food stamps (as an E5-6), seeing the military run into the ground with what many would call a criminal disregard I have but one thing to say. IMHO, as a president / former president and leader of the free world, he builds one hell of a house for Habitat.
BTW, I would offer as a counter for Carter’s PPNA, “Guests of the Ayatollah” by Mark Bowden – well researched and written (as opposed to, oh, say, PPNA…)
- SJS
I like Jimmy, he keeps me from being last on the list.
Bubba
Steeljaw, I spent the summer with you on the Omaha (an LA-class fast attack), sweating our butts off in 80 degree seawater….. I’ll see your 8 months in the fresh air with stores and mail and raise you 74 days without sunlight, much less fresh anything or mail.
I may live to regret this little aside but – would y’all be discussing the Iranian hostage crisis in which Canada was….ahem…. somewhat instrumental in helping out its good neighbours to the south? See when you do one good thing of merit you sometimes have to rely on those points for years to come
About Jimmy, he reminds me a bit of our own Joe Clark, a one term [well in Joe Who's case (as the media tagged him), less than one term] leader who made much more of a legit name for himself after leaving politics than while supposedly “running the country”. Perhaps being President or Prime Minister (respectively) was just the practice run.
Malaise! Double digit inflation! Desert One! Enough said!
KC
Ah, Steeljaw, I catch yer drift, there. I must say though, that at least half of my extended family are Southern Baptists, including my dear dead Mom. I know whereof I speak.
What annoys me so much about this is that the Baptists started out as the skeptics, the free-thinkers among the Christians. Somehow, lately, lots of ‘em seem to be more into sucking up to authority – *any* authority, even some tiny local authority like Phred (spit!) Phelps.
If you wanna do that, there’s the Church of Rome, which is at least a rational, consistent, homogeneous world-wide authority.
Oh, P.S. Mom was a *real* Baptist. Thought for herself, made up her own mind. Voted to acquit when the police witness answered, “I can’t recall.” Many years before Hillary said that.